NationStates Jolt Archive

Good or bad?

sack em all, or lower their wages/allowences and plough the money back into the country where theres needy people!!!!!!!

:tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum:

The monarchy itself is not bad, just the hereditary principle. We should simply elect the monarch and maybe a prince of wales too...

Elect a monarchy? the principal of a monarchy is a herditory position. I thyink you mean elect a head of state. I don't like the monarchy.

"God save the Queen....Tourism Money!"

Elect a monarchy? the principal of a monarchy is a herditory position. I thyink you mean elect a head of state. I don't like the monarchy.

There is precedent from accross Europe for an elected monarch. Why change tradition just for the sake of it? Just remove the offensive parts and carry on as normal. What does it matter whether our head of state is called a president or a king?

"God save the Queen....Tourism Money!"

Why should you pick your system of government based on the views of a handfull of foreigners?

since I am an ignorant yank.please enlighten me as to what you mean by electing the monarch. do you mean voting for your favorite member of the royal family or just some MP or lord?

I am an ignorant yank.

You got that right :D

Keep the monarchy- I wouldn't mind getting some fresh blood into the dynasty though. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas...I mean the Windsors are getting a bit inbred. Who's up for arranging a dynastic marriage between Prince William and the House of Oranje? The Dutch monarchy seems to be pretty alright. :)

Then we can get Charles to abdicate immediately upon assuming the throne and hey, presto- King William V (or IV? or VI? Can't remember), a monarch who WON'T be fundamentally out of touch with modern thought.

since I am an ignorant yank.please enlighten me as to what you mean by electing the monarch. do you mean voting for your favorite member of the royal family or just some MP or lord?

I mean electing someone under normal election rules (although I would favour barring pollitical leaders from standing) to undertake the role of monarch for a fixed term. To be fair, the election should probably be held accross all the commonwealth countries for which the British monarch is the head of state...

while some may see a constitutional monarchy as little more then a living flag saying your tax dollars at work or near it
there is one thing having one is at least potentialy good for and that is for there to exist as an additional check and balance a voice totaly outside of the loop of political machinations, at least in principal, although i think phillip not being allowed to marry koo stark and then what happened to diana were absurd, unneccesary and uncalled for. well then i'm an american and we don't have any such thing over here and a lot of people over here think we're more free because we never did but i'm far from convinced of that either. on the third hand, all governments in any form are to at least a small degree tyrannical and to a large degree superfilous.

=^^=
.../\...

Elect a monarchy? the principal of a monarchy is a herditory position. I thyink you mean elect a head of state. I don't like the monarchy.

The principal of monarchy is rule by one, hence, mon(one)archy(ruler). You can have an elected dictator.

"God save the Queen....Tourism Money!"

Why should you pick your system of government based on the views of a handfull of foreigners?

Thats sarcasm. It's from God Save The Queen by the Sex Pistols. My point by quoting that is that the Queen is useless for everything else except tourism money.

Thats sarcasm. It's from God Save The Queen by the Sex Pistols. My point by quoting that is that the Queen is useless for everything else except tourism money.

Aha, I see. You mean :

God save the Queen
'cos tourists are money
and our figurehead
is not what she seems


It's just that I've seen that point seriously argued on here in the past :D

I am against abolishing the monarchy. I think that any monarchy is a very good bad and for some unknown reason I am just pro-it.

the queens gr8....wateva she does :roll: weve still got her any the only thing shes done for us is promote that guy in the child sex scandal to Governor General.....and god damn ruined Gough Whitlams career :evil:

I am against abolishing the monarchy. I think that any monarchy is a very good bad and for some unknown reason I am just pro-it.

Even though the act of settlement makes it quite clear that monarch or heir must not only not be a Catholic but cannot marry one either?

Even though the act of settlement makes it quite clear that monarch or heir must not only not be a Catholic but cannot marry one either?

I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't specify which monarchy I liked or even whether I like the current monarchy or not. :wink:

I didn't say it was perfect and I didn't specify which monarchy I liked or even whether I like the current monarchy or not. :wink:

Fair enough ;)
You back posting here properly again or still taking it easy?

Keep the monarchy- I wouldn't mind getting some fresh blood into the dynasty though. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas...I mean the Windsors are getting a bit inbred. Who's up for arranging a dynastic marriage between Prince William and the House of Oranje? The Dutch monarchy seems to be pretty alright. :)

I don't think the House of Orange has princesses who would qualify for marrying Prince William; they're all too young or too old. :)


Anyway, what's this discussion about? The "monarchy"? A king as head of state or any absolute ruler as head of state?

The Belgian monarchy? Yes! More importantly, should we abolish Belgium? YES!

Albert II is shaking all the time anyway...this king business can't be good for his health. And Filip is just a dumbass :wink:

Flanders should just rejoin the Netherlands. The Wallonians (?) can join France if they want. :)

Thats sarcasm. It's from God Save The Queen by the Sex Pistols. My point by quoting that is that the Queen is useless for everything else except tourism money.

Aha, I see. You mean :

God save the Queen
'cos tourists are money
and our figurehead
is not what she seems


It's just that I've seen that point seriously argued on here in the past :D

Thats the one. I thought it was just "Tourism Money" instead of "'cos tourists are money" but yeah.

I see where you got the confusion from though.

Sure, why not. I'll get right on it.

Flanders should just rejoin the Netherlands. The Wallonians (?) can join France if they want. :)

I agree, but I think Wallonia has more potential as an independent nation. In France they would just be regarded as just another border region. It would be even worse for them than the situation right now (where Flemish money is killing the Walloon economy). Flanders (re)joining the Netherlands wouldn't be too bad, but there are definitely cultural differences.

If you ask me the Flemish aren't all that much different from the people in Limburg and Noord-Brabant... and possible Zeeland. But then I live above the big rivers, so I wouldn't know for certain. :)

Nu ja, je hebt gelijk. Ik ben wel voor een samenwerkingsverband...maar ook economisch en infrastructureel gezien zijn er verschillen...zo is er in Vlaanderen bvb veel meer wildbouw en is in Nederland de gezondheidszorg van lagere kwaliteit.

Zelf zo'n samenwerkingsverband zal al tot onoverkomelijke problemen leiden. Wiens wetten zullen komen te vervallen en wiens regeltjes blijven bestaan? Ik vrees dat het er niet van zal komen. :)

Aan de andere kant betekent een samenvoeging wel meer stemmen in de Raad van Ministers in 'Brussel'.

Daar nog zoiets: moeten we blijven vasthouden aan Brussel? Of laten gaan? Volledig vervlaamsen zal wel nooit lukken...maar toch blijft het een Vlaamse (verfranste) stad.

Ze zouden Brussel eigenlijk moeten verzelfstandigen als een soort Europese hoofdstadstaat... maar daar zullen de Fransen het natuurlijk weer niet mee eens zijn.

Dat dacht ik ook; Brussel heeft nu toch al haar eigen regering, is een apart gewest enz. Volgens mij kan het ook best een soort Europese stadsstaat worden; het is toch al de hoofdstad van Europa. Maar wie zegt dat daar de rechten van Nederlandstaligen zullen gerespecteerd worden? De Franstaligen zullen wel weer proberen de Euro-bureaucraten naar hun hand te zetten.

Dat moet dan dus niet; alle talen (ook andere dan Nederlands en Frans) zouden in een echte Europese hoofdstad gelijke rechten moeten hebben.

Je zou Brussel kunnen vergelijken met Washington; dat ligt volgens mij ook niet in een van de Amerikaanse staten, maar in een eigen district (Columbia).

Ach, en als we dan toch bezig zijn:

- Nederland en Vlaanderen worden een Duitse deelstaat;

- Wallonië wordt een Frans arrondissement (of hoe het ook heet daar);

- Zwitserland wordt onder Frankrijk, Duitsland en Italië verdeeld;

- Liechtenstein en Oostenrijk verdeeld onder Duitsland en Italië;

- Monaco wordt van Frankrijk;

- Andorra van Spanje;

- Portugal en Spanje worden wellicht samengevoegd;

- Denemarken wordt een Duitse deelstaat;

- Noorwegen moet zijn walvissenjacht maar eens opgeven en samengaan met Zweden;

- Ierland gaat in zijn geheel op in het Verenigd Koninkrijk;

- San Marino en Vaticaanstad worden Italiaans.

Volgens mij vergeet ik iets... ohja, Luxemburg wordt ook Frans.

Wellicht dat we dan eens een evenwichtig Europa krijgen. :)

:shock:

Aanhanger van groot-Germanië? :wink: Dat idee heb ik al eerder gehoord :P

Neen, Vlaanderen als onafhankelijke staat in Europa blijft voor mij de beste keuze. 'Alle talen gelijke rechten'? Hoe ga je dat doen? Heel de stad alle talen in Europa aanleren? Dit is weer zo'n voorbeeld van dromen en vooruitzien: het Nederlands wordt nog niet gesproken zoals het moet of we zijn al bezig met de toekomst. We moeten NU vechten voor onze hoofdstad! :wink:

Ugh, I *can't* stand the idea of a monarchy!! Even if the ruler is a good one I'd rather he or she be elected by the people

Yeah yeah yeah, what about those "constitutional monarchies," you ask? Well the monarchs hold no political power, so it's really not a constitutional monarchy.

Aanhanger van groot-Germanië? :wink: Dat idee heb ik al eerder gehoord :P

Nederduitsland klinkt beter. :)


'Alle talen gelijke rechten'? Hoe ga je dat doen? Heel de stad alle talen in Europa aanleren? Dit is weer zo'n voorbeeld van dromen en vooruitzien: het Nederlands wordt nog niet gesproken zoals het moet of we zijn al bezig met de toekomst. We moeten NU vechten voor onze hoofdstad! :wink:

Daarmee bedoel ik niet dat iedereen alle talen moet spreken, maar wel dat je alle vormen van overheid (nl. de Europese overheid want dat is dan de enige in Brussel) in je eigen taal aan kunt schrijven. Het is dus eerder een verplichting voor de overheid dan voor de bevolking.

Aanhanger van groot-Germanië? :wink: Dat idee heb ik al eerder gehoord :P

Nederduitsland klinkt beter. :)


'Alle talen gelijke rechten'? Hoe ga je dat doen? Heel de stad alle talen in Europa aanleren? Dit is weer zo'n voorbeeld van dromen en vooruitzien: het Nederlands wordt nog niet gesproken zoals het moet of we zijn al bezig met de toekomst. We moeten NU vechten voor onze hoofdstad! :wink:

Daarmee bedoel ik niet dat iedereen alle talen moet spreken, maar wel dat je alle vormen van overheid (nl. de Europese overheid want dat is dan de enige in Brussel) in je eigen taal aan kunt schrijven. Het is dus eerder een verplichting voor de overheid dan voor de bevolking.

Aha, dat klinkt al beter. Ook Maltees dan? :P

Alle Europese talen, dus ook Maltees. Dan huren ze maar wat meer vertalers in. :)

Ik vraag me af hoeveel Maltesers (haha) er in Brussel zijn op dit ogenblik. Zal wel niet vet zijn.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Zal wel niet vet zijn.

Nogal magertjes denk ik zelfs. :)

Republics are bad enough. Monarchies are some of the worst system possible. A king doesn't have to have the approval of anyone, even corporations. He is just born into power.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Monarchies are figureheads, why not let them stay? They give us more news than Blair ever could!

Good or bad?

I don't think that it's the best form of government. But for you, i voted not t abolish it. :lol:

I cannot imagine a world without kings and queens..

Elect a monarchy? the principal of a monarchy is a herditory position. I thyink you mean elect a head of state. I don't like the monarchy.

There is precedent from accross Europe for an elected monarch. Why change tradition just for the sake of it? Just remove the offensive parts and carry on as normal. What does it matter whether our head of state is called a president or a king?

No there is no such precedent. What you mean is an elective monarchy in which certain NOBLES elect the king. Such as the elector states that elected the holy roman empire or the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth. This is oligarchy not democracy. The common man does not elect a king!

I cannot imagine a world without kings and queens..

It isn't hard to do. Nothing to... Oh wait. I'm quoting Lennon.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Britain needs the Queen. Just by being there she prevents presidential 'democracy'. Monarchy is definitely the lesser of those two evils.

No country should abolish a monarchy, even if they are largely ceremonial. In the case of the House of Windsor, for example, they are a great tourist attraction, and give British tabloids something to talk about. It easily contributes more to a national economy than it consumes.

As far as I'm concerned, a monarchy is ok as long as it doesn't mean a dictatorship by an absolute ruler. A king or queen as a mere figurehead with no real power suits me nicely. (In cases he or she also serves as a kind of symbol of national unity or so.)

In such a country, the monarchy can remain in tact as long as the majority of the population supports it. :)

Britain needs the Queen. Just by being there she prevents presidential 'democracy'. Monarchy is definitely the lesser of those two evils.

And by being there, she encourages our current joyous system of, as Lord Halisham put it, 'elected dictatorship' for any party with a majority in the Commons. There's 'democracy' for you.

I'm very much for an elected President so as to act as an real check-and-balance, as well as abandoning the ridiculuous hereditary notion, oh and don't even get me started on perogative powers. 'Democracy' indeed.

No there is no such precedent. What you mean is an elective monarchy in which certain NOBLES elect the king. Such as the elector states that elected the holy roman empire or the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth. This is oligarchy not democracy.

Pretty much the same foundation that our parliament was based on - the electorate made up of only those with property. We have introduced universal sufferage to that, why not this?

The common man does not elect a king!

I don't think anyone takes that sort of thing seriously nowadays. You'll be on to the divine right to rule in a minute if you continue down that track... :lol:

Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, you mean? :)

Fair enough ;)
You back posting here properly again or still taking it easy?

I have to be properly now to recuperate (sp?) my post count.

Hum it think some people are missing the point (including odly the CIA in their world fact book), we are not a country ruled by our monarch, we are a country ruled by the house of commons (and to a lesser extent the house of lords thought thats a seperate debadte).

So we are a decomcracy with a figure head for our goverment in the monarch.

By doing so we avoid alot of the problems of republics where thier are power arguments between the the persident and the elected chambers, say think of france.

So No i don't think we should get ride of the monarhy, not for sentimental reasons but due to the fact the system seems to run just fine.

if you want to make england more democratic, abandon the first past the post system of election which both the US and UK use, and replace it with proprotinal respresentation instead (which most of europe uses)

but that has its own problmes (less stable/long term goverments)

All goverment systles/system have thier problem ours seems to have less than most so we should keep what we got for now.

You want to know the best reason for keeping the monarchy int he UK?

Two words.

President Thatcher ...

:shock: :shock: :shock:

You want to know the best reason for keeping the monarchy int he UK?

Two words.

President Thatcher ...

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Exactly.

Well Put.

I am Canadian, and Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of Canada, and I don't have a problem with her. She has no power. She's just there to look pretty. Why should we go through all the trouble of electing a monarchy (which then it would not be a monarchy) if they monarchy dosen't do anything?

I am Canadian, and Queen Elizabeth II is the queen of Canada, and I don't have a problem with her. She has no power. She's just there to look pretty. Why should we go through all the trouble of electing a monarchy (which then it would not be a monarchy) if they monarchy dosen't do anything?

u got it - the monarchy don't do anything apart from get rich at the expense of not the canadian citizens but the english! :evil: